Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Pope Francis On Evolution And Big Bang


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

This is factually incorrect. 

 

It is true, the AnswersinGenesis journal is not peer-reviewed evidence or scientific scrutiny. 

I am not surprised that you do not believe in CO2 caused climate change. 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
Posted

It is true, the AnswersinGenesis journal is not peer-reviewed evidence or scientific scrutiny. 

I am not surprised that you do not believe in CO2 caused climate change. 

 

The fact is that there are many scientists who are creationists, and even (gasp!) young earth creationists. However, they don't go around blowing their horn, because they are too busy doing their jobs. On top of that, the bigoted response from those intolerant of their beliefs would get them fired. But, the simple fact is that they are young earth creationists because of the evidence. 

 

If CO2 caused the warming of the planet, what has caused the "pause" for the last 15 years despite a steady increase in CO2? 

Posted (edited)

I said 

 

Climate Change deniers and Young Earth Creationists do not like scientific consensus, peer-reviewed evidence, and scientific scrutiny. 

Climate Change deniers and creationists love internet blogs, amateurs, conspiracy theories, and "evidence" that is out of context. 

 

The fact is that there are many scientists who are creationists

 

1. amateurs 

 

I agree there are some scientists that are young earth creationists, but not that many Biologists that are creationists. There are many computer scientists that are creationists, it doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. 

 

 

On top of that, the bigoted response from those intolerant of their beliefs would get them fired.  

 

2. Conspiracy theories

 

Biologists, Paleontologists, and Geneticists are open minded. Amateurs (outside their field) get rejected for presenting pseudoscience, not evidence.

Many biologists would love to see evidence that contradicts Evolution, but they only seen bad science.

 

If CO2 caused the warming of the planet, what has caused the "pause" for the last 15 years despite a steady increase in CO2? 

 

3. "evidence" that is out of context

 

It's true that the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 15 years, but the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that. Surface temperatures only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, which proves that the sun is not causing global warming.

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
Posted

The fact is that there are many scientists who are creationists, and even (gasp!) young earth creationists. However, they don't go around blowing their horn, because they are too busy doing their jobs. On top of that, the bigoted response from those intolerant of their beliefs would get them fired. But, the simple fact is that they are young earth creationists because of the evidence. 

 

If CO2 caused the warming of the planet, what has caused the "pause" for the last 15 years despite a steady increase in CO2? 

 

National Academies of Science on evolution.

SEE http://www.nas.edu/evolution/

 

American Association for the Advancement of Science on evolution.

http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=450

 

Partial list of scientific organizations that reject creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Intelligent_design

 

 

Over 97% of scientists that work in the area of Global Warming support the theory of Global warming.  You tell me would keep taking your car to be fixed when the person working on it kept saying there was many mechanics that believed miniature flying pink elephants were causing your car not to run, or would you fire them? 

 

List of scientific organizations that accept the theory of Global Warming

SEE http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

 

CO2 was established as a Green House gas in the 19th Century.

SEE http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

 

There has been NO PAUSE in the rise of the Global Temperature over the last 15 years. In fact 13 of last 15 years have been the hottest recorded.

SEE http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

Posted

I said 

 

 

 

1. amateurs 

 

I agree there are some scientists that are young earth creationists, but not that many Biologists that are creationists. There are many computer scientists that are creationists, it doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. 

 

 

 

2. Conspiracy theories

 

Biologists, Paleontologists, and Geneticists are open minded. Amateurs (outside their field) get rejected for presenting pseudoscience, not evidence.

Many biologists would love to see evidence that contradicts Evolution, but they only seen bad science.

 

 

3. "evidence" that is out of context

 

It's true that the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 15 years, but the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that. Surface temperatures only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, which proves that the sun is not causing global warming.

 

 

The answer is there are a dozen theories, and no one knows why there's been a pause. Which also exposes the fact that no one knows really, why it warms either. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988

Posted

The answer is there are a dozen theories, and no one knows why there's been a pause. Which also exposes the fact that no one knows really, why it warms either. 

 

 

It is totally irrelevant, please read what I just said. 

 

 

t's true that the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 15 years, but the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that. Surface temperatures only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, which proves that the sun is not causing global warming.

Posted

The fact is that there are many scientists who are creationists, and even (gasp!) young earth creationists. However, they don't go around blowing their horn, because they are too busy doing their jobs. On top of that, the bigoted response from those intolerant of their beliefs would get them fired. But, the simple fact is that they are young earth creationists because of the evidence. 

If it is based on scientific evidence then the number of atheist young earth creationists should be substantial. Ever met one?

Posted

If it is based on scientific evidence then the number of atheist young earth creationists should be substantial. Ever met one?

 

Nope. What's interesting is that almost all the young earth creationists were taught to believe in an old earth and evolution, in school. But, changed their minds as they studied it more. 

Posted

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

Posted

This winter here in Utah right now sure seems to support global warming.

 

To be fair no one season or even a small series of seasons in one relatively small area supports Global Warming. Weather is just too variable for that determination. What we can say is that the trend is for more warming of the planet as a whole over the foreseeable future. 

Posted

Nope. What's interesting is that almost all the young earth creationists were taught to believe in an old earth and evolution, in school. But, changed their minds as they studied it more.

No, most of them take their cues from the Bible which most of them learned before school taught them otherwise. If the scientific evidence was strong then there would be atheist YEC who made that decision based on the evidence. I have only met one Young Earth creationist who is an atheist and he believes the earth was built by aliens as an insane asylum.

Posted

Anyone read the article(s) about the Big Bang Theory maybe being replaced by new science theories?

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

Yes. A thread was started in the social hall (not sure why there) and more recently in the In the News. While I'm skeptical about the specifics, I like the idea a lot. Retain all the predictions of the Big Bang theory and avoid the singularity that the vanilla version of the model runs into.

Posted

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

 

Support for much of your conclusions: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/12/darwin-day/

Posted

This winter here in Utah right now sure seems to support global warming.

 

What about the north east?  Huge snowfalls.

Posted

I fundamentally don't see it as a science vs religion issue. I live comfortably in both worlds. As long as God is in charge. I'm fine with that.

I don't see it as an either or proposition either. Our physical bodies are very finely tuned to be compatible with this, our, planet. It is immensely unlikely to me that we would thrive on another world in mortality. I believe God uses evolution to achieve this fine-tuning (among other things that evolution is good for).

Posted

What about the north east?  Huge snowfalls.

And last August in Utah was cooler than usual.

Posted

And last August in Utah was cooler than usual.

 

Here in southern Idaho I do not think we had a 100 degree day all summer and we usually have several in August,

Posted

No, most of them take their cues from the Bible which most of them learned before school taught them otherwise. If the scientific evidence was strong then there would be atheist YEC who made that decision based on the evidence. I have only met one Young Earth creationist who is an atheist and he believes the earth was built by aliens as an insane asylum.

 

You've made this statement twice. The problem is what people allow as evidence. If for example, blood cells found in dino bones is evidence of a young earth, it is rejected as evidence by atheistic scientists because "there has to be another explanation." 

 

One's assumptions leads to one's conclusions. And yes I agree with you this happens on both sides of the spectrum. 

Posted (edited)

And last August in Utah was cooler than usual.

 

Climate scientists do not look at the local weather to measure the global temperature, most of the global warming is going to the oceans. 

Global Warming can cause record lows because it could be linked to some polar vortex excursions (the link is debatable), but again, the weather doesn't say anything about the global temperature. 

 

No wonder why you guys deny the climate science, you do not understand it. 

 

Pope Francis is Pro-Science, he said that man is primarily responsible for climate change and that it is a moral issue. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/15/pope-francis-says-climate-change-is-mostly-mans-fault

 

 

What's interesting is that almost all the young earth creationists were taught to believe in an old earth and evolution, in school. But, changed their minds as they studied it more.

 

What is interesting is that if they specialize in Biology, most of them stop believing in creationism.

Can you name one Biologist in the world that no longer believes in common descent? Even Mike Behe believes in common descent. 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
Posted

Oh, please….you don't understand the discussion if you think I or anyone else was in the least trying to prove that climate change wasn't happening by commenting on local weather.

Posted

This winter here in Utah right now sure seems to support global warming.

Yep, first time I remember it being this warm in February, the golfers are lovin it.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...